Abnormality display device

Abstract

To provide an abnormality display device capable of clarifying an abnormality, which is a failure cause of a PLC.SOLUTION: An abnormality display device 10 for displaying abnormality of a PLC 1 comprises: a failure history acquisition unit 12 which acquires a failure history A generated in association with failure of the PLC 1; a storage unit 13 which stores a database D defining a relation of an identification code of each of a plurality of abnormalities including a target error occurring within a prescribed time and set in a failure cause candidate; a failure cause estimation unit 14 which estimates a failure cause B from the plurality of abnormalities included in the failure history A acquired by the failure history acquisition unit 12 on the basis of the failure history A and the database D stored in the storage unit 13; and a display unit 16 which displays failure cause information C on the failure cause B estimated by the failure cause estimation unit 14.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to an abnormality indicating device. [Background technology]

[0002] The following Patent Document 1 discloses a technique for displaying abnormalities in a control panel for a PLC (Programmable Logic Controller). The control panel is equipped with an operation panel connected to a CPU, and the operation panel is provided with a display board that displays abnormalities that occur in the machine tool. It describes that abnormalities that occur in the machine tool, such as "coolant abnormality," "main arm abnormality," and "chip discharge device abnormality," are displayed on the display board in an order that indicates priority. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Patent No. 3711820 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] PLCs are modularized by function, and are configured so that a single communication unit handles the transfer of multiple pieces of information between each function. When a problem occurs in the PLC's communication unit, multiple abnormalities related to the functions using that communication may occur simultaneously within a few seconds. For this reason, if unnecessary measures are taken to deal with an abnormality that is not the cause of the failure, it is expected that measures to address the cause of the failure, which should have been addressed first, will be delayed. In this case, the time lost due to the delay in dealing with the PLC failure may result in the long-term shutdown of production equipment.

[0005] The present invention has been made in view of the above-mentioned problems, and aims to provide an anomaly display device that can clarify the anomaly that is the cause of a PLC failure. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] One aspect of the present invention is An abnormality display device that displays an abnormality in a PLC, A fault history acquisition unit that acquires a fault history that occurs due to a fault in the PLC; A storage unit that stores a database that defines the relationship between the identification codes of a plurality of anomalies including the target anomaly that is set as a failure cause candidate; a failure cause estimation unit that estimates a cause of a failure from among a plurality of abnormalities included in the failure history based on the failure history acquired by the failure history acquisition unit and the database stored in the storage unit; a display unit that displays failure cause information regarding the failure cause estimated by the failure cause estimation unit; An abnormality display device comprising: is located. Effect of the Invention

[0007] According to the anomaly display device of the above aspect, it is possible to estimate the cause of a failure, which is an anomaly that should be dealt with first, from among the multiple anomalies included in the failure history, based on the failure history acquired by the failure history acquisition unit and a database that defines the relationship between the respective identification codes of the multiple anomalies including the target anomaly set as the failure cause candidate. Then, it is possible to display failure cause information related to the estimated failure cause on the display unit. This makes it possible to notify the user of the cause of the failure, and to prevent unnecessary measures from being taken for an anomaly that is not the cause of the failure. As a result, it is possible to prevent the production equipment from being stopped for a long time due to time loss caused by delays in dealing with the PLC failure.

[0008] As described above, according to the above-mentioned aspect, it is possible to provide an anomaly display device that can clarify the anomaly that is the cause of a PLC failure. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0009] [Figure 1] FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a schematic diagram of the abnormality display device according to the first embodiment. [Diagram 2] FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a database stored in a storage unit in FIG. [Diagram 3] 2 is a flowchart of a failure cause estimation process executed by a failure cause estimation unit in FIG. 1 . [Figure 4] 2 is a diagram showing the display unit in FIG. 1 with a fault history displayed on the screen. FIG. [Diagram 5] 5 is a diagram showing the screen of the display unit in FIG. 4 in a state where fault cause information is highlighted. [Figure 6] 5 is a diagram showing the screen of the display unit in FIG. 4 in a state where fault cause information is highlighted. [Figure 7] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing the screen of the display unit according to the second embodiment with fault cause information being highlighted. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0010] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the abnormality display device according to the above aspect will be described with reference to the drawings.

[0011] (Embodiment 1) 1. Configuration of the fault display device 10 As shown in Fig. 1, an abnormality display device 10 of the first embodiment is for displaying an abnormality when a PLC1 fails. The PLC1 is the main body of a control device called a PLC (Programmable Logic Controller). This PLC1 is provided with a memory area 2 for storing a fault history A that occurs when the PLC1 fails. The memory area 2 is configured so that, when a new abnormality is detected, the old abnormality information already stored is discarded and replaced with the new abnormality information. This memory area 2 is preferably non-volatile, and the fault history A can be checked even when the power is turned off.

[0012] The fault display device 10 includes a processing unit 11 and a display unit 16. The processing unit 11 further includes a fault history acquisition unit 12, a storage unit 13, a fault cause estimation unit 14, and an output unit 15. The display unit 16 may be integral with the processing unit 11. Note that the PLC 1 may share some of its functions with the fault display device 10. For example, the storage area 2 of the PLC 1 may be a component of the fault display device 10.

[0013] The processing unit 11 is a computer device having a processor, a ROM, a RAM, an interface for inputting and outputting between external devices, and the like. For example, a desktop or notebook personal computer (PC), a tablet terminal, a mobile terminal, and the like are used as the computer device. The "processor" here broadly includes processing devices that perform data calculations and conversions, program execution, control of other devices, and the like, among the components of a computer. Typically, a processor is configured by a CPU (Central Processing Unit) that controls the entire computer, or an MPU (Micro Processing unit) that integrates some of the functions of the CPU.

[0014] The fault history acquisition unit 12 has a function of acquiring a fault history A that occurs in association with a fault in the PLC 1. The fault history A includes information such as a plurality of abnormalities and the time of occurrence of each abnormality. The storage unit 13 has a function of appropriately storing the fault history A acquired by the fault history acquisition unit 12, a database D used by the fault cause estimation unit 14, programs for executing each process, initial data, and the like.

[0015] The failure cause estimation unit 14 has a function of performing a failure cause estimation process to estimate a failure cause B from among a plurality of anomalies included in the failure history A, based on the failure history A acquired by the failure history acquisition unit 12 and a database D stored in the storage unit 13. During the failure cause estimation process, the failure history A is temporarily stored in the storage unit 13, and then output from the storage unit 13 and input to the failure cause estimation unit 14. Alternatively, the failure history A may be output from the failure history acquisition unit 12 and input to the failure cause estimation unit 14. In addition, the database D is read out from the storage unit 13 and input to the failure cause estimation unit 14.

[0016] The output unit 15 has a function of outputting the output information of the failure cause estimation unit 14 to the display unit 16. The display unit 16 has a function of displaying failure cause information C relating to the failure cause B estimated by the failure cause estimation unit on the screen 16a based on the information input from the output unit 15. The failure cause B can also be called the "main cause" which is the main cause of the failure. In this embodiment, the display unit 16 displays the failure history A on the screen 16a, and then displays the failure cause information C relating to the failure cause B estimated by the failure cause estimation unit 14 on the screen 16a.

[0017] 2. Database D 2 is stored in advance in the storage unit 13. This database D defines the relationships between the identification codes (also called "error codes") E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, and E7 of a plurality of abnormalities, including the target abnormality A1 that occurs within a predetermined time and is set as a candidate for the cause of the failure. The "predetermined time" here corresponds to a timeout period that is set in advance to detect an abnormality (set in consideration of including a period set so that the abnormality is detected (determined) within a specified time period when the abnormality occurs).

[0018] The target abnormality A1 to be registered in the database D is preferably set based on information such as the results of desk studies, evaluation results at the time of prototyping, and examples in the market. Furthermore, if the failures expected in the PLC1 are classified into three levels: major failures, which are important and may have an impact on the system such as stopping, minor failures, which are less severe than major failures, and warning levels, it is preferable to select the target abnormality A1 from among the abnormalities that fall into the major failure category. This is because an abnormality that falls into the major failure category is highly likely to be the cause of failure B. More specifically, examples of the target abnormality A1 include hardware failures such as communication breaks between processors. This is because a communication break between processors can become a serious failure that induces multiple abnormalities due to a communication interruption.

[0019] The database D contains information that defines the relationship between the identification codes of two anomalies: a target anomaly A1 that has been set as a possible cause of a failure, and a synchronously occurring anomaly A2 that occurred at the same time within a specified period of time as the target anomaly A1. Here, "occurring at the same time" refers not only to occurrences at exactly the same time (i.e., at the same time), but also to occurrences within a predetermined period of time. In the following explanation, for the sake of convenience, the target anomaly A1 will be referred to as the "target error A1" and the synchronously occurring anomaly A2 will be referred to as the "concurrently occurring error A2."

[0020] To explain the database D in more detail, in Fig. 2, the database D includes five target errors A1, and five relationships are illustrated, No. 1 to No. 5. In each of these five relationships, the identification code of the target error A1 is linked to the identification code of a concurrent error A2 that occurred at the same time as the target error A1.

[0021] In the first relationship, the identification code E2 of the concurrent error A2 is linked to the identification code E1 of the target error A1, and the time regulation of the identification code E2 with respect to the identification code E1 is set to -2 seconds. According to this relationship, if there is an abnormality that occurs within 2 seconds before the occurrence of the target error A1, this abnormality is defined as the concurrent error A2.

[0022] In the second relationship, the identification code E2 of the target error A1 is linked to the identification code E3 of the concurrent error A2, and the time regulation of the identification code E3 with respect to the identification code E2 is set to -2 seconds. According to this relationship, if there is an abnormality that occurs within 2 seconds before the occurrence of the target error A1, this abnormality is defined as the concurrent error A2.

[0023] In the third relationship, the identification code E2 of the target error A1 is linked to the identification code E4 of the concurrent error A2, and the time regulation of the identification code E4 with respect to the identification code E2 is +2 seconds. According to this relationship, if an abnormality occurs within 2 seconds after the occurrence of the target error A1, this abnormality is defined as the concurrent error A2.

[0024] In the fourth relationship, the identification code E5 of the target error A1 is linked to the identification code E6 of the concurrent error A2, and the time regulation of the identification code E6 with respect to the identification code E5 is set to -10 seconds. According to this relationship, if there is an abnormality that occurs within 10 seconds before the occurrence of the target error A1, this abnormality is defined as the concurrent error A2.

[0025] In the five-eye relationship, the identification code E5 of the target error A1 is linked to the identification code E7 of the concurrent error A2, and the time regulation of the identification code E7 with respect to the identification code E5 is set to -2 seconds. According to this relationship, if there is an abnormality that occurs within 2 seconds before the occurrence of the target error A1, this abnormality is defined as the concurrent error A2.

[0026] It should be noted that the database D in Fig. 2 is merely illustrative. Therefore, the number of target errors A1 is not limited to five, and the number of target errors A1 can be changed as necessary. Furthermore, the number of simultaneously occurring errors A2 linked to one target error A1 is not limited to one, and multiple simultaneously occurring errors A2 can be linked to one target error A1 as necessary. On the other hand, linking one simultaneously occurring error A2 to one target error A1 has the advantage of making calculations easier.

[0027] 3. Fault cause estimation process Next, the fault cause estimation process will be described with reference to Fig. 2 to Fig. 4. This fault cause estimation process can be performed by sequentially executing the processes from step S101 to step S113 in Fig. 3 using a predetermined program. In this fault cause estimation process, one step may be divided into multiple steps, multiple steps may be integrated into one, or another step may be added, as necessary. The predetermined program may be stored in the storage unit 13 in advance, or may be downloaded to the processing unit 11 from an external server (e.g., a cloud server) via a communication line.

[0028] As shown in FIG. 4, when the failure cause estimation process is executed, first, the failure history A is displayed on the screen 16a of the display unit 16. This failure history A is a display in which all abnormalities that occurred when the PLC1 failed are arranged in chronological order. In FIG. 4, the abnormality displayed at the top of the screen 16a is the most recent abnormality that occurred most recently. When the PLC1 failed, a plurality of abnormalities typically occur at the same time. Among the multiple abnormalities in the failure history A, the four abnormalities No. 1 to No. 4 (anomalies indicated by identification codes E1, E2, E3, and E4) in the area N surrounded by the dashed line in FIG. 4 correspond to the abnormalities in the latest failure history. In contrast, the three abnormalities No. 5 to No. 7 (anomalies indicated by identification codes E10, E5, and E5) correspond to the abnormalities in the past failure history.

[0029] As shown in FIG. 4, the screen 16a of the display unit 16 displays a cause estimation button 17 as an input receiving unit that receives an input. The cause estimation button 17 is for executing the estimation of the cause of failure B by the cause of failure estimation unit 14. Therefore, the cause of failure estimation unit 14 is configured to execute the estimation of the cause of failure B on the condition that an input is received by operating the cause estimation button 17. The display unit 16 is also configured to highlight and display the cause of failure information C of the cause of failure B on the condition that an input is received by operating the cause estimation button 17. That is, the cause estimation button 17 serves both as a function for executing the estimation of the cause of failure B and a function for executing the highlighting of the cause of failure information C. If necessary, these two functions may be executed by separate buttons.

[0030] The operation of the cause estimation button 17 may be a click operation using a mouse, or may be a touch operation in which the user touches a location on the screen 16a corresponding to the cause estimation button 17 with his / her finger.

[0031] In the failure cause estimation process of FIG. 3, the process proceeds to step S102 on the condition that the cause estimation button 17 is turned ON in step S101. Step S102 is a step for judging whether or not the latest failure history (four abnormalities No. 1 to No. 4 in FIG. 4) contains a preset target error A1. In this step S102, the database D in FIG. 2 is referenced. It is judged whether or not the latest failure history contains an identification code of the target error A1 registered in the database D. At this time, the target error A1 No. 1 in the database D is given top priority. That is, first, it is judged whether or not the latest failure history contains the target error A1 No. 1. If the target error A1 No. 1 is not included, it is next judged whether or not the target error A1 No. 2 is included. Thereafter, such judgments are continued in order.

[0032] In the case of FIG. 4, the latest failure history contains a target error A1, which is indicated by an identification code E1 in database D. Therefore, step S102 becomes "Yes", and the process proceeds to step S103. In this case, the target error A1, which is indicated by the identification code E1, becomes the first target error A1. On the other hand, if the latest failure history does not contain an identification code for the target error A1 registered in database D, step S102 becomes "No", and the process proceeds to step S104. In step S104, none of the four abnormalities No. 1 to No. 4 in FIG. 4 are highlighted.

[0033] Step S103 is a step for determining whether or not there is a simultaneous error A2 that corresponds to the time specification of the first target error A1 for this target error A1. In the case of FIG. 4, there is a corresponding abnormality in the latest failure history. That is, for the abnormality indicated by the identification code E1 (the abnormality that occurred at 9:10:14), there is an abnormality indicated by the identification code E2 (the abnormality that occurred at 9:10:12). Therefore, step S103 becomes "Yes" and the process proceeds to step S105. On the other hand, if there is no corresponding abnormality in the latest failure history (for example, if it is outside the time specification conditions), step S103 becomes "No" and the process proceeds to step S104.

[0034] Step S105 is a step for judging whether the concurrently occurring error A2 is the target error A1. In the case of the latest failure history in FIG. 4, the abnormality indicated by the identification code E2 corresponds to the target error A1 registered in the database D. Therefore, step S105 becomes "Yes", and the process proceeds to step S108. In this case, the concurrently occurring error A2 indicated by the identification code E2 becomes the second target error A1. On the other hand, if the concurrently occurring error A2 is not the target error A1, step S105 becomes "No", and the process proceeds to step S106. In step S106, on the condition that the cause estimation button 17 is ON, the process proceeds to step S107, and the information on the first target error A1 is highlighted.

[0035] Step S108 is a step for judging whether or not there is a simultaneous error A2 that corresponds to the time specification of the second target error A1 for this target error A1. In the case of FIG. 4, there is a corresponding abnormality in the latest failure history. That is, there is an abnormality indicated by the identification code E3 (an abnormality that occurred at 9:10:11) for the abnormality indicated by the identification code E2 (an abnormality that occurred at 9:10:12). Therefore, step S108 becomes "Yes" and the process proceeds to step S111. On the other hand, if there is no corresponding abnormality in the latest failure history (for example, if it is outside the time specification condition), step S108 becomes "No" and the process proceeds to step S109. In step S109, the process proceeds to step S110 on the condition that the cause estimation button 17 is ON, and the information of the second target error A1 is highlighted.

[0036] Step S111 is a step for determining whether or not the concurrently occurring error A2 is the target error A1. In the case of the latest failure history in FIG. 4, neither the abnormality indicated by the identification code E3 nor the abnormality indicated by the identification code E4 corresponds to the target error A1 registered in the database D. For this reason, step S111 is "No" and the process proceeds to step S109. On the other hand, if the concurrently occurring error A2 is not the target error A1, step S111 is "Yes" and the process proceeds to step S112. In step S112, on the condition that the cause estimation button 17 is ON, the process proceeds to step S113, and the information on the third target error A1 is highlighted.

[0037] According to the above-described fault cause estimation process, it is possible to narrow down the multiple abnormalities to the abnormality that is the fault cause B with high reliability. This makes it possible to prevent the erroneous treatment of an abnormality other than the fault cause B from being performed.

[0038] In order to further improve the reliability of the estimation of the failure cause B, it is preferable to add another step after step S111 in FIG. 3. For example, a judgment step of "Is there a simultaneous error with the third target error?" is added as a step to be executed if the result of step S111 is "Yes." Then, if the result of this judgment step is "No," the process proceeds to step S112. If the result of this judgment step is "Yes," a judgment step of "Is the simultaneous error the target error?" is added as in step S111. By adding such a step, logic for highlighting the information of the fourth target error can also be added. This makes it possible to increase the number of narrowing down processes for the failure cause B, thereby increasing the reliability of the estimation of the failure cause B.

[0039] 4. Highlighting of fault cause information C By the above-mentioned fault cause estimation process, the display unit 16 displays the fault history A and then highlights the fault cause information C. The fault cause information C includes at least the abnormality content or identification code of the fault cause B, and other information may be added as necessary. By displaying both the abnormality content and identification code of the fault cause B, the content of the fault cause B can be more accurately conveyed to the user.

[0040] In the case of the latest fault history in Fig. 4, step S110 in Fig. 3 is selected, and so as shown in Fig. 5, the information on the second target error A1 (the column for the abnormality indicated by the identification code E2 (the abnormality that occurred at 9:10:12)) is highlighted as fault cause information C. Also, if step S107 in Fig. 3 is selected, then the information on the first target error A1 (the column for the abnormality indicated by the identification code E1 (the abnormality that occurred at 9:10:14)) is highlighted as fault cause information C, as shown in Fig. 6.

[0041] For example, the fault cause information C can be highlighted with white characters. Other highlighting methods may be used, such as coloring the fault cause information C, making the fault cause information D bold, or blinking the fault cause information C. By highlighting the fault cause information C, even if multiple abnormalities are displayed consecutively on the display unit 16, the user can visually identify the fault cause B from among the multiple abnormalities at a glance.

[0042] 5. Effects Next, the effects of the above-mentioned embodiment 1 will be described.

[0043] According to the anomaly display device 10 of the first embodiment, it is possible to estimate the cause of failure B, which is an anomaly that should be dealt with first, from among the multiple anomalies included in the failure history A, based on the failure history A acquired by the failure history acquisition unit 12 and the database D that defines the relationship between the respective identification codes of the multiple anomalies including the target error A1 set as the cause of failure candidate. Then, it is possible to display the cause of failure information C related to the estimated cause of failure B on the display unit. This makes it possible to notify the user of the cause of failure B, and to prevent unnecessary measures from being taken for an anomaly other than the cause of failure B. As a result, it is possible to prevent the production equipment from being stopped for a long time due to the time loss caused by the delay in dealing with the failure of the PLC1.

[0044] Therefore, according to the first embodiment, it is possible to provide an abnormality display device 10 that can clarify the abnormality that is the cause B of the failure of the PLC 1.

[0045] Furthermore, according to the fault display device 10 of the first embodiment, it is possible to clarify the fault, which is the cause B of the failure of the PLC 1, not only in newly installed equipment but also in existing equipment in operation without updating the PLC 1.

[0046] Hereinafter, other embodiments related to the above-mentioned embodiment 1 will be described with reference to the drawings. In the other embodiments, the same elements as those in embodiment 1 are given the same reference numerals, and the description of the same elements will be omitted.

[0047] (Embodiment 2) In the second embodiment, the display mode of the fault cause information C on the display unit 16 is different from that in the first embodiment. In the second embodiment, the display unit 16 ranks and displays a plurality of pieces of fault cause information C related to a plurality of fault causes B. That is, in the second embodiment, the fault cause information C is not highlighted as in the first embodiment, but is displayed in a ranked order.

[0048] First, the failure cause estimation unit 14 determines all abnormalities registered as the target error A1 in the database D as candidates for the failure cause B. In the case of FIG. 7, the abnormality indicated by the identification code E1 and the abnormality indicated by the identification code E2 correspond to the candidates for the failure cause B. Then, the failure cause estimation unit 14 displays the failure cause information C of the failure cause B identified in the above-mentioned failure cause estimation process in a ranked order by assigning a code (1) indicating the highest processing priority. This makes it possible to prompt the user to process the abnormality with the code (1). The failure cause information C of the remaining candidates for the failure cause B is displayed in a ranked order by assigning a code (2). This makes it possible to prompt the user to process the abnormality with the code (2) if the processing for the abnormality with the code (1) is not effective.

[0049] The other configurations and methods are the same as those of the first embodiment.

[0050] According to the second embodiment, the failure cause information C can be displayed on the screen 16a of the display unit 16 in a manner other than highlighted display.

[0051] In addition, the same effects as those of the first embodiment are achieved.

[0052] 6. Transformation Although the present invention has been described based on the above embodiment, it is understood that the present invention is not limited to the embodiment or structure. The present invention also includes various modifications and modifications within the equivalent range. In addition, various combinations and forms, and other combinations and forms including only one element, more than one, or less than one, are also within the scope and concept of the present invention.

[0053] In the above embodiment, an example is given of a case in which the estimation of the cause of failure B is executed on the condition that the cause estimation button 17 is operated while the failure history A is displayed on the screen 16a of the display unit 16. However, instead of this, the estimation of the cause of failure B may be executed automatically in parallel with the display of the failure history A. [Explanation of symbols]

[0054] 1: PLC, 10: Abnormality display device, 12: Fault history acquisition section, 13: Memory section, 14: Fault cause estimation section, 16: Display section, 17: Cause estimation button (input reception section), A: Fault history, A1: Target error (target abnormality), A2: Concurrently occurring error (abnormality occurring at the same time), B: Fault cause, C: Fault cause information, D: Database, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7: Error code (identification code)

Claims

1. An abnormality display device that displays an abnormality in a PLC, A fault history acquisition unit that acquires a fault history that occurs due to a fault in the PLC; A storage unit that stores a database that defines the relationship between the identification codes of a plurality of anomalies including the target anomaly that is set as a failure cause candidate; a failure cause estimation unit that estimates a cause of a failure from among a plurality of abnormalities included in the failure history based on the failure history acquired by the failure history acquisition unit and the database stored in the storage unit; a display unit that displays failure cause information regarding the failure cause estimated by the failure cause estimation unit; An abnormality display device comprising:

2. The anomaly display device according to claim 1 , wherein the database defines the plurality of anomalies that occur within a predetermined time period.

3. The abnormality display device according to claim 1 , wherein the display unit displays the failure history and then displays the failure cause information in an emphasized manner.

4. The anomaly display device according to claim 1 , wherein the display unit displays the fault history and then ranks and displays the plurality of pieces of fault cause information.

5. The abnormality display device according to claim 1 , wherein the malfunction cause information includes an identification code of the malfunction cause.

6. an input receiving section for receiving an input is displayed on the display section; The anomaly display device according to claim 1 , wherein the failure cause inferring unit infers the cause of the failure on condition that the input receiving unit receives an input.

7. The abnormality display device according to claim 6 , wherein the display unit displays the fault cause information in an emphasized manner on condition that the input receiving unit receives an input while the fault history is being displayed.

8. 3. The anomaly display device according to claim 1, wherein the database associates an identification code of the target anomaly with an identification code of one or more concurrently occurring anomalies that occurred at the same time as the target anomaly.

Images